Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 3)
Message-ID: <398@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 13:36:24 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.398
Posted: Mon Apr 15 13:36:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 04:42:59 EST
References: <330@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 57
Summary: 

In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes:
>
>
>            THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>       I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
>
>           A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
>
>               6.  No known mutation has ever produced a form of life  having
>                   both  greater  complexity and greater viability [a,b] than
>                   any of its ancestors [c-f].

	Incorrect, mainly because increased viability is a function of
envitonment. A mutant that is disadvantagous in one enviromnment may
be advantageous or even necessary in another.  For instance the
vestigial-wing mutant in fruit flies. This form cannot fly, and under
standard lab conditions it does not breed well, since "normal" fruit
flies prefer to mate with other "normal" flies. *But*, when a styeady,
high wind is present "normal" flies are blown away by the wind; the
vestigial-wing, flightless flies are *not*, thus they are the *only*
ones to breed. This is *clearly* greater viability in this environment.
>
	What follows is a set of the typical long-outdated scientific
references and pseudo-science from creationist writers with no
standing in the scientific community. Only one is worthy of any
comment.

>                   d)  ''It is good to keep in mind...that  nobody  has  ever
>                       succeeded  in  producing  even  one new species by the
>                       accumulation     of     micromutations.''     [Richard
>                       Goldschmidt,  THE  MATERIAL  BASIS  OF EVOLUTION (Yale
>                       University Press). ]

	Wrong again, two counter examples: Zea mays(common corn), and
Canis familiaris(the domestic dog). Neither of these *ever* existed
in the wild, and they are *distinct* from *any* wild species. They
were bred by humans over a few thousand years. By the way this is also
a counter to your "limits of breeding" argument from the last posting.
Given *enough* breeding time, artificial selection *can* exceed these
supposed limits.

	Come on, what we want is references to *modern* scientific
work, from accepted journals, *not* taken out of context, which
not only debunks evolutionary theory, but *also* gives reason why
creationism is a *real* *scientific* alternative.



P.S:	Could you get rid of all those blank lines and leaders,
they just eat up net resources without contributing anything!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen